Our UR5e sleeve transfer became more consistent after a locator was added. The replacement tray then produced another missed pickup. I have kept both trays identified and the trial results separate, but the internal note still says locator fixed it. What wording fairly describes the improvement without promising interchangeability we have not shown?
Our training notes improved when we named the trays actually tried. Say what changed on the first tray and that the replacement still missed. The useful modification does not need a universal success claim.
Preserve the distinction between an observed improvement and acceptance for normal operation. The remaining assessment needs to cover the intended tray variation and recovery from a missed transfer.
I have changed the note to say the first identified tray improved in the observed runs and the replacement failed. Hassan, its locating recess appears shallower, but nobody has measured that difference yet.
We found a replacement insert that looked right from above but sat on a different shoulder, so measuring both trays from the actual locating features would be a useful early check here.
Yes, Alex, the support and the working feature were compared together, though it was an insert rather than a tray and I would not assume Oscar has the same fault.
Measurement confirms a recess difference, but inspection has not yet related it to the pocket positions. I am keeping the improvement note limited. No further pickup offsets have been proposed.
Who owns the tray interchangeability decision? That should be explicit before the trial expands, otherwise the program owner may be asked to compensate for tooling nobody has accepted.
Tooling engineer owns it, with inspection doing the comparison. Thank you Alex for the wording; purchasing can see why the locator is useful without treating all replacement trays as approved.